behaviour

"...the behaviour of most present day humans remains moderated by magical thinking-type mental processes (lack of integration between the left prefrontal cortical areas and memory), underwritten by sub-optimal cause and effect perception."

Robert G. Bednarik, An aetiology of hominin behaviour, Homo, 2012

Sunday, 17 November 2013

Evolution, revolution or saltation scenario for the
emergence of modern cultures? by the prestigous Chris Stringer and Francesco
D’Errico was published in 2011. Delivered originally at a Discussion Meeting
issue ‘Culture evolves’ it represents a good example of the current Pleistocene
archaeological narrative. The expressed intent of the authors was to study the
evidence indicating “whether modern cognition and associated innovations are
unique to our species and whether they emerged abruptly, gradually or as the
result of a discontinuous process.” Upon assuming an a priori knowledge of what
constitutes the “quintessential human features such as modern cognition,
language, imagination, art, religious beliefs and so forth” (since no argument is
provided for why these activities define “human-ness” or indeed is there any
attempt made to define the fuzzy term “modern cognition”) the authors embark on
what can only be described as some sort of haphazard journey through the past
selectively presenting facts. Combining this approach with musings that clearly
reflect the authors preferred version of pre-history the paper appears to be
more romantic than scientific. Undeniably the pretext of the objective assumes
that there is “something unique” about “our” species.

Method

This retrospective analysis takes a simple approach in
analysing the work by Stringer and D’Errico awarding a score for each “fact” or
generalisation attributed to either “anatomically modern humans” or other
hominins (primarily Homo sapiens neanderthalis) mentioned in the paper. In this
way it should be possible to determine whether the evidence selected and
subsequently presented was biased toward activities that until recently were
perceived to be the unique preserve of so-called “modern humans” or whether a
bias existed toward presenting the fashionable case that Neanderthals were
“possibly more intelligent than we’ve given them credit for”.

Each fact, set of facts or generalisation is printed in
italic with comments directly underneath where applicable. A rolling score is
provided in the format (HSS vs HSN/other) in addition to a table of scores
provided at the end. Occasionally points are deducted or not awarded, for
example, because there is a caveat, or to reflect the implied meaning (usually
in favour of HSS as becomes evident).

Results

Subsistence strategy
and technology…

•Blade technology and formal stone tools in the form of
backed pieces—tools modified by retouch on a side—are signalled at sites such
as Twin Rivers and Kalambo Falls, Zambia, dated at approximately 300 ka. (2 –
0)

• Uncertain instances of small blade production come from a
Pinnacle Point cave dated at approximately 160 ka. (3 – 0)

• changes in lithic technology are recognized between the
MSA I (approx. 110–115 ka) and the MSA II (approx. 94–85 ka) at Klasies (4 – 0)

• Still Bay . Characterized by foliate bifacial points used
as spear tips (figure 1a), this technocomplex apparently spans only 1–3 ka, and
disappears near the transition between the end of the last interglacial (sensu
lato) and the downturn to Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 4 (approx. 70 ka) (5 – 0)

• production of small blades retouched into segments [23],
and other backed pieces (figure 1b), called Howiesons Poort (HP), spanning
between approximately 65 ka and 59 ka (7 – 0)

• similar to the Mousterian points made by Neanderthals in
Europe(9 – 1)

• unstandardized microlithic tools produced by the bipolar
technique during the early LSA (10 – 1)

• A precocious emergence of technical innovation is also
observed in north Africa, where new dating situates the earliest occurrences of
the distinctive pedunculate point forms typical of the Aterian at 145 ka (11 –
1)

• controlled use of fire to increase the quality and
efficiency of stone tool manufacturing processes has been reported from
Pinnacle Point, Mossel Bay, approximately 72 ka (12 – 1)

• Location of such adhesives on small HP backed pieces
indicates the latter were used as barbed spear [23] or arrow points (15 – 1)

• Large harpoons made from substantial mammals limb bones
(figure 1d), found at Katanda, central Africa, may possibly go back to
approximately 90 ka (16 – 1)

• Fully shaped bone tools (projectile points, awls and
spatulas) are found at southern African Still Bay and HP sites such as Blombos
and Sibudu (21 – 1)

• The careful deliberate polishing of the approximately 75
ka Blombos bone projectile points (figure 1e) has no apparent functional reason
and, rather, seems a technique used to give a distinctive appearance and/or an
‘‘added value’’ to this category of artefacts. This may imply that symbolic
meaning was attributed to bone tools. (22 – 1)

• Reduction in size between the Still Bay and HP projectile
points (figure 1f) has been tentatively interpreted as a shift from the use of
hand-delivered bone spear heads to bow and bone arrow technology, possibly with
the use of poison (24 – 1)

• New discoveries and reappraisal of key Mousterian
sequences in Europe and the Near East identify trends in Neanderthal
subsistence strategies and technology that parallel in many respects the
pattern of innovation followed by disappearance described for Africa. (25 – 2)

• Ongoing research on the technological variability of the
Mousterian in Europe identifies variations in time and space in lithic
technology and tool types interpreted as discrete cultural adaptations,
comparable to those observed in contemporary African populations (26 – 3)

• more ‘formal’ stone tools (figure 1h) since 200 ka, with
an apparent acceleration in the turnover of types of débitage and tools after
the last interglacial culminated in a clear regionalization of cultural features
during the millennia that immediately preceded the recognized arrival of modern
humans in Europe (26 – 5)

• Research conducted in the Levant reveals that at sites
with diagnostic Neanderthal and modern human remains, the two populations
hunted the same species, produced their tool kits by applying Levallois flaking
and manufactured a comparable range of tool types (29 – 8)

• Differences between the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic of
Europe in lithic raw material procurement strategies [38] have been interpreted
as evidence for more reduced Neanderthal geographical ranges and social
networks (30 – 8)

• However, such distances are extremely variable within the
Mousterian, for example reaching figures comparable with those recorded in the
Upper Palaeolithic in eastern Europe [39]. On the other hand, very local
procurement strategies are recorded at many MSA sites in South Africa, including
HP sites (30 – 9)

• Recent research has shown that Neanderthal hunting weapons
were comparable to those used by broadly contemporaneous Middle Stone Age
populations in southern Africa. Wooden spears over 2 m long, made of spruce and
pine, have been discovered at Schöningen in Germany, dating from approximately
300 to 400 ka. These were probably used as thrusting spears but might also have
been javelins, as suggested by their forward centre of gravity (31 – 10)

• Moreover, a large literature now supports the view that
the hunting equipment of Neanderthals was not limited to simple wooden spears.
Tip morphology, evidence of hafting and the presence of diagnostic impact scars
indicate that at a number of sites from Europe and the Levant, going back at
least to early MIS 6 (approx. 186 ka), Levallois and retouched Mousterian
points were used as weapon armatures (31–14)

• As far as hafting and the production of composite tools
are concerned, the level of technical development of Neanderthals seems comparable
to that recently identified at HP sites from South Africa (32 – 15)

• At the Italian site of Campitello, dated to MIS 6,
Neanderthals heated birch bark in a reductive environment to temperatures of ca
350° in order to obtain pitch for hafting flint flakes, found associated with
elephant bone (32 – 16)

• A similar treatment is attested at the Middle Palaeolithic
site of Königsaue in Germany, dated to approximately 48 ka, where two fragments
of birch-bark pitch (figure 1i) still show the imprint of the bifacial tool
once adhering to them (32 – 17)

• Heat treatment of lithic raw material to facilitate
knapping is so far unrecognized among Neanderthals, Upper Palaeolithic modern
humans before the Solutrian (approx. 22 ka), and most African and non-African
modern humans contemporaneous with or posterior to the Pinnacle Point instances
of this technique (33 – 16)

• The most common use of bone during the Eurasian Lower and
Middle Palaeolithic is that of long-bone shaft fragments to retouch lithic
tools [45]. Knapped handaxes and scrapers were also occasionally produced at
Acheulian and Mousterian sites. (33 – 17)

• Bone industries showing a level of technological
complexity equivalent to that normally associated with Upper Palaeolithic
cultures are only found in ‘transitional’ technocomplexes such as the
Châtelperronian in France (figure 1j) and the Uluzzian in Italy (figure 1k).
The former technocomplex is now firmly attributed to Neanderthals [46] while
such an attribution is still tentative for the latter due to the scarcity and
undiagnostic character of the human remains associated with those layers. (34 –
19)

• The interpretation of the Châtelperronian bone tools and,
as we will see later, personal ornaments, in particular those from the Grotte
du Renne, Arcy-sur-Cure, is controversial (34 – 19)

• Archaeozoological, technological and microscopic analyses
of Châtelperronian and Uluzzian bone tools [48,51] demonstrate that they are
not expedient tools used in single instances to fulfil immediate needs, but
rather are the result of planned chains of complex technological actions,
shared by groups belonging to the same cultural tradition. This is demonstrated
by the consistency that we have identified in the choice of the species and
bone type, technique of manufacture, overall tool morphology and resharpening
techniques (34 – 21)

• This indicates that even if it was demonstrated that the
use of bone tools or personal ornaments by Neanderthals was the result of
cultural contact with moderns, this would in fact reinforce rather than dismiss
the modern character of their cognition, as it would show their ability, as
observed in many historical instances among modern human populations, to
incorporate external stimuli and reshape those influences in order to make them
an integral part of their own culture (35 – 21)

Symbolic mediated
behaviour…

•inhumation and treatment of the dead are generally regarded
as quintessential features of modern humanity (1-0)

• The claim for a polish suggestive of curation of a skull
at the approximately 160 ka old site of Herto in Ethiopia has not, so far, been
supported by further data (2-0)

• At present, the approximately 115 ka cave occupation of
Skhul in Israel has the oldest known symbolic burial, an early modern male interred
clasping the lower jaw of a massive wild boar (3-0)

• The 100 ka occupation of Qafzeh Cave near Nazareth also
has a number of modern human burials, one of which was a child whose body was
covered by deer antlers (4-0)

• three MSA burials are known, that of the Border Cave, with
a possible age of 70 ka, and those of Nazlet Khater [56], and Taramsa, Egypt
[57] dated, respectively, to 40 ka and 68 ka. (7-0)

• In Europe the oldest burials are Gravettian and date to
approximately 30 ka. (8-0)

• The bodily traces of earlier moderns in Europe, the
Aurignacians, are mainly in the form of pierced human teeth [58] suggesting
that they preferred to carry traces of their enemies or their ancestors with
them rather than burying them (9-0)

• Around 40 ka two individuals were interred separately at
Mungo [59] in south eastern Australia—a woman was cremated at high temperature
and another adult (sex uncertain) was buried stretched out and with a covering
of haematite pigment (perhaps originally on the skin, or perhaps on some
covering material such as a hide or bark). (10-0)

• Neanderthal burials in the Levant are as old or might be
even older than those of moderns, if one accepts the most ancient date for the
Tabun C1 burial (10-1)

• Neanderthal burials in Europe are numerous but
concentrated in a few areas, suggesting that Neanderthals, as modern humans in
Africa, may have engaged in funerary practices leaving no traces in the
archaeological record (11-2)

• Although in a number of cases this information is
difficult to verify now, grave goods consisting of stone tools, bone
retouchers, engraved bone and a rock slab engraved with cupules were reported
at Neanderthal burials such as La Ferrassie, La Chapelle-aux-Saint, Le Moustier
in France, Amud and Dederiyeh in the Middle East (11-6)

• The oldest known human bone used as a tool is a fragment
of Neanderthal skull from La Quina in the Charentes region of France (11-7)

• Red pigmental material, attested in Africa at
archaeological sites dated to approximately 160 ka [6] and possibly at sites
dated to approximately 280 ka [5] becomes a common feature of approximately 100
ka (figure 1l) and younger MSA sites [5,63]. (14-7)

• In the Middle East the oldest evidence for systematic use
of pigments dates back to approximately 100 ka (figure 1m,n) and comes from
Qafzeh [66] and Skhul [65] Clear evidence of heating, probably to change the
colour of the pigmental material, is attested at these two sites (16-7)

• Pigments, mostly black but also red, have been used by
Neanderthals in Europe (figure 1o,w) since approximately 300 ka [64], but their
use became systematic only after approximately 60 ka [64] (16-8)

• The last-known Neanderthals in France made intensive use
of both black and red pigments. A case in point is the 18 kg of red and black
pigments, often bearing traces of use, found in the Châtelperronian layers of
the Grotte du Renne, Arcy-sur-Cure [50], the largest quantity of pigmental
material found so far at a Palaeolithic site. (16-10)

• Convincing evidence for the use of personal ornaments,
consisting of perforated marine shells belonging to a single species at each
site, is found from caves in south Africa, north Africa and the Middle East
dated to between 120 and 70 ka (18-10)

• The perforated Conus shell from Border Cave, associated
with the burial of a young individual may be as old as 76 ka according to the
recent chronological attribution of this burial (22-10)

• Perforated Nassarius gibbosulus shells were recovered at
the Aterian site of Oued Djebbana, Algeria (figure 1q), and Skhul from
approximately 100 ka levels that include 10 Homo sapiens burials (25-10)

• Perforated shells of the same species (figure 1r,s)
showing traces of intentional modifications, possible deliberate heating to
change the colour of the bead, use-wear and traces of red ochre were recovered
from approximately 80–70 ka levels at Grotte des Pigeons, Rhafas, Ifri n'Ammar
and Contrebandiers in Morocco (28-10)

• The only Neanderthal site that has yielded possible
evidence for the use of shell beads by Neanderthals is the Cueva de los Aviones
in southern Spain [12]. The Mousterian layers of this site, dated to
approximately 45–50 ka BP, contained a marine shell assemblage including three
valves of Acanthocardia and Glycymeris, bearing natural perforations (figure
1v). One of the latter contained a residue of red pigment identified as
haematite. (29-12)

• approximately 40 ka old beads from Europe are associated
with both Neanderthals and AMH They differ from their approximately 120–70 ka
antecedents in that they take the form of hundreds of discrete types,
identifying regional patterns (30-13)

• As with formal bone tools (see above), the minimalistic
consensual interpretation of personal ornament use by Neanderthals (figure 1x)
is that they were fully able to incorporate new categories of symbolic items in
their own culture. (31-14)

• At approximately 40 ka, beads in Africa were made on
ostrich egg shells (figure 1u), and only later are diverse ranges of raw
material introduced for bead manufacture (32-14)

• In southeast Asia, the oldest documented ornament is a
perforated tiger shark tooth found in New Ireland, New Guinea at a site dated
between 39.5 and 28 ka (33-14)

• The earliest evidence for bead use in Australia comes from
the site of Mandu Mandu, Cape Range of Western Australia, where 22 Conus sp.
shell beads were recovered in a layer radiocarbon dated to ca 32 ka (34-14)

• The earliest secure abstract designs, engraved on bone and
ochre, are found in South Africa and are dated to ca 100 ka [72]. Examples are
the complex geometric patterns on ochre (figure 1y) from approximately 100 to
70 ka levels at Blombos Cave and from MSA layers at Klein Kliphuis in the
Western Cape, and approximately 73 ka old notched and engraved bone from
Blombos and Klasies. (36-14)

• Evidence from the Middle East includes an engraved cortex
dated at approximately 50 ka from the Mousterian site of Quneitra that could be
associated with H. sapiens or Neanderthals, and an engraved lithic core from
approximately 90 ka levels at Qafzeh (38-15)

• A number of objects bearing putative engravings have also
been reported from Lower and Middle Palaeolithic sites in Europe. Some of these
‘engravings’ resulted from natural phenomena and carcass processing. Others
were deliberate engravings [64], but still need detailed publication (38-16)

• Figurative representations consisting of painted, engraved
and carved animals, are so far only well dated to much later, at approximately
31 ka in Africa, at Apollo 11 shelter [74], Namibia, and at approximately 35 ka
in Europe, for example at Chauvet, Fumane and in southern Germany (40-16)

• The oldest known carved musical instruments, consisting of
flutes made of bird bone and mammoth ivory decorated with notches, are found in
Europe and also date back to approximately 35 ka (41-16)

• No convincing musical instruments are associated with
Neanderthals, so far (42-16)

Table 1

Section

Homo
sapien sapiens

Other
Hominins

Total

Subsistence strategy and technology

35 (62%)

21 (38%)

56

Symbolic mediated behaviour

42 (72%)

16 (28%)

58

Total Score

77
(68%)

37
(32%)

114

Discussion (a
limited commentary)

Chauvet Cave is unscholarly attributed to HSS whilst
Bednarik has refuted this suggestion years ago and provided evidence that more
clearly associates the work to Robust hominins (i.e. Neanderthals). As
mentioned many of the “facts” quoted are simply wrong – a quick look at my
timeline demonstrates this.

Concerning blade production, the three counter examples
provided here were googled in a matter of seconds.

"But this view has been challenged in recent years as researchers
discovered blades that dated to 380,000 years in the Middle East and to almost
300,000 years ago in Europe, where Neandertals may have made them (ScienceNOW,
1 December 2008). Now it appears that more than 500,000 years ago, human
ancestors living in the Baringo Basin of Kenya collected lava stone cobbles
from a riverbed and hammered them in just the right way to produce stone
blades. Paleoanthropologists Cara Roure Johnson and Sally McBrearty of the
University of Connecticut, Storrs, recently discovered the blades at five sites
in the region, including two that date to between 509,000 and 543,000 years ago.
"This is the oldest known occurrence of blades," Johnson reported
Wednesday here at the annual meeting of the Paleoanthropology Society.
http://news.sciencemag.org/archaeology/2009/04/oldest-stone-blades-uncovered.
Johnson and McBrearty found the stone blades in a basalt outcrop known as the
Kapthurin Formation, including four cores from which the blades were struck.
"These assemblages would have been made by a different species of
human," Johnson said. "Who were they?" The blades come from the
same part of the formation where researchers have found two lower jaws that
have been variously described as belonging to Homo heidelbergensis or H.
rhodesiensis, human ancestors in Europe and Africa that predate the origin of
our species, H. sapiens."

Note how although the instances of blade production quoted
in the original article are, according to the authors themselves, “uncertain”,
they are still mentioned - most likely because they strengthen the foregone
conclusions of the authors. Even a minor change in the archaeological record
perceived to be associated with the elusive anatomically modern humans is
registered as significant whereas many such changes could be provided for other
hominins that are far more significant few of which have been provided by the authors.

The Mount Carmel finds from Qafzeh Cave and Skhul Shelter
exhibit prominent tori and receding chins including Qafzeh 9 which is claimed
to be of the most modern appearance. Skhul 9 shows distinct prognathism
directly comparable to that of the "classic Neanderthal". Even Chris
Stringer himself has admitted that the material is "transitional"
(Bednarik 2011). Additionally, the lack of evidence of a "superior
technology" usually attributed to AMH by SR proponents is telling, as are
the nearby "Neanderthal" burials in Tabun Cave and the association of
all three with 'Mousterian tools'.

Again, it is a questionable assertion that unstandardised
microlithic tools produced by bipolar are at all indicative of a significant
innovation. Bipolar reduction industries are numerous throughout the Lower
Palaeolithic and all the way through to the Holocene. They occur where large
quantities of homogenous material suitable for reduction by free hand direct
percussion are not available. Invariably, bipolar reduction techniques produce
a wide range of “unstandardised” tools, many of which could be classed as
microlithic, for instance, the Jackkobien from the Netherlands.

D’Errico and Stringer strangely single out ‘Aterian’ point
forms as representative of the “innovation” they perceive occurring (uniquely?)
in Africa. No reasoned argument is provided for why these forms are considered
to be particularly innovative or indeed any explanation given for why such a
perceived innovation is likely to be indicative of the “quintessential”
characteristics defining “modern humans” as opposed to say the development of
the stylised bifacial “hand-axe”. In defence of the often misunderstood
Neanderthals and in the interests of science this is as good a place as any to
raise the issues of taphonomic logic and the random order in which all
archaeological evidence is acquired which the authors neglect to mention let
alone account for. This particular “innovation” may be rare precisely because
this technique is superflouous where good quality material is available, indeed
it is rarely seen even much later on in the archaeological record and is
therefore clearly not pivotal to “modern cognition”.

A quintessential feature of modern humanity might include
the ability to store symbolic information outside of our brains and
subsequently to use this symboling capacity to modify the physical environment
on a massive scale (again see Bednarik...). Such evidence (of symboling)
however is scantily assessed or addressed if at all in this piece of
"professional research".

No mention is made of the evidence for burials at the
Pleistocene site of Lake Fezzan which is of the Acheulian (Lower or Middle
Palaeolithic) or stone huts from Morocco.

It soon becomes clear that Stringer and D’Errico assume that
HSS are responsible for any evidence of "modern cognition" at
archaeological sites in Africa especially and even those widely recognised to
be “mixed” (or intermediate) such as Qafzeh and Skhul, for example despite the
clear Mousterian designation. It is arguable that many of the other sites
“assumed” by the authors to be occupied by HSS have no clear evidence of
association with HSS since Eve advocates are unable to provide any evidence of
“fully anatomical modern humans” living during the Pleistocene. Make no
mistakes, D'Errico and Stringer's argument relies upon the unsupported
supposition that the fossil skeletons identified as modern humans by some are
inherently cognitively different from those identified as Neanderthal. (They
have yet to grasp the full enormity of culturally defined sexual selection
favoring neoteny.)

A pattern in the evidence presented is evident. Each example
in favor of HSS is drawn out in detail and numerous individual examples are
provided, whereas for HSN examples are lumped together, not expanded upon,
played down but more often than not simply not quoted. I cannot believe that
two academics could not be aware of the evidence for sea-faring 840,000 years
ago and yet it is unmentioned despite the obvious implications in any
discussion involving "modern cognition" or "quintessentially
human characteristics". Indeed very little of the evidence in support of
early indications of cognitively "advanced" behaviour or even
"culture" is mentioned, either due to selection bias, or ignorance.
Of course the ostrich eggshell beads from El Greifa, Libya are not mentioned
although they are twice the age of those quoted for HSS (and laden with
culturally imbibed significance) nor too any of the cupules from Asia, the
meandering line and on and on.

In summary, I am astounded that such a biased paper ever made it to press.